I was disturbed to read The Dartmouth Editorial Board's (Feb. 6, "Verbum Ultimum") condemnation of the motivations behind the proposed student-led presidential debate. If the event had come to fruition, I doubt that The Dartmouth would be so quick to criticize. Granted, the work to bring a full presidential debate to Dartmouth students could have been done better in a number of ways. But even in light of the shortcomings, the planners should be commended for their efforts to bring such a monumental event to students. There are few key areas of misunderstanding that I believe have led The Dartmouth astray in their judgment of the student-organized presidential debate, and I would like to respond with the facts.
All presidential candidates confirmed, at least by telephone or email, that they would attend the student-organized presidential discussion. On Jan. 15, Lieberman's scheduler wrote: "The Senator will attend the Koop Presidential Forum Jan. 25." On Jan. 21, Wes Clark's campaign manager Eli Segal said Gen. Clark would be at the round table event. After the event fell through, John Kerry wrote: "I'm sorry the event was cancelled; I was eager to listen and learn from all of you." Sen. Lieberman wrote, "It's hard to imagine that students were organizing this event -- but I've come to expect that from innovative Dartmouth students." John Edwards wrote: "I know how hard the students worked on this project. It would have been terrific; I'm sorry the event was cancelled." With all the candidates confirmed, we were sure the debate was going to happen; however, it fell though at the last minute.
In December, the Rockefeller Center decided to go another direction with the Lifetime event after a fringe candidate announced he would attend the debate. The fact that the fringe candidate Lyndon LaRouche was invited to the debate was a collective mistake. Miscommunication between the College, student organizers and the Drum Major Institute resulted in a letter accidentally being sent from the College. None of the three parties deserves all the blame for this. Moreover, many solutions were proposed: change the date or venue, cancel and reschedule the event or stipulate that the media partner would only air the major candidates.
In January, Janos Marton and I, on behalf of the Student Assembly, joined with the Drum Major Institute and BuzzFlood to help pull off the debate. We organized the event's logistics, which included securing the Lebanon Opera House -- a location which would have allowed more than 700 students to watch the debate. Although we wanted to announce the planning of the event to campus, we had to keep the secret until plans were finalized. It didn't make sense to publicize the event unless it was certain to happen.
Some people on campus have disagreed about the goals of BuzzFlood. But regardless of past disputes, BuzzFlood was working on a project that was going to truly benefit Dartmouth students: a debate with all the Democratic presidential candidates. That's why Marton and I became interested in working with them to involve students in the heart of our nation's political contest. Even after Rocky decided to go another direction, the Drum Major Institute and Buzzflood chose to continue working on the debate. The round table discussion was not about promoting the students involved. In fact, the BuzzFlood name was not to be present at the debate -- BuzzFlood did not even appear on the tickets or the banner for the proposed debate. Dartmouth College's Student Assembly was to be the presenting sponsor. This debate was for students, period.
The student-organized debate did not materialize for reasons that I'm not fully aware of. We have heard that someone at the College made a phone call to Kerry's campaign and effectively scared him away from a debate that was student-led, but that's just what we heard. It's not grounds to accuse anyone of sabotaging our debate. In The Dartmouth's piece on the debate, it appeared that we were trying to unfairly blame the College. That is not the case. There isn't enough evidence to know just why Kerry (and subsequently some of the other candidates) backed out of our debate, so we can't conclusively know what happened. Politics is a game that is all too often very difficult to explain.
In fact, many College administrators were very supportive of a student-organized debate, including President Wright. Former Surgeon General Dr. C. Everett Koop '37 was wholeheartedly behind the student-led debate. Janos and I personally met with Koop and he gave his full approval for the project.
Hindsight is always crystal clear. As for the members of Student Assembly and BuzzFlood who worked on the debate -- Brent Reidy, Kabir Sehgal, Marton and I -- we could have done a better job on communication and a myriad of other issues surrounding the debate. We don't blame others for our shortcomings. We tried our best and almost pulled it off. It's unfortunate that The Dartmouth had to be so brutal in trying to point out what we did wrong. We took a risk and fell short, but I'm still glad we took the risk. As Garth Brooks sings, "I could have missed the pain, but I'd have had to miss the dance."
